mcgilldebatefandomcom-20200213-history
Red Herring
Overview This page discusses the deliberate use of a "red herring" argument to mislead and confuse one's opponents in a debate round. This should really be called a "meta red herring." Unlike the traditional fallacy, in which the speaker aims to divert one subject to another in order to make themselves more convincing, in the debate context the speaker will introduce a red herring deliberately in the hopes that their opponents miss the point and shift their talking points away from the fundamentals of the speaker's case. In essence, the speaker committs a minor red herring in the hopes of tricking their opponents into a committing a major one. The intended result is that their opponents leave the actual substance of the speaker's case untouched, while focusing much of their refutation on a minor or even totally irrelvant issue. Why it may be unhelpful It goes without saying that this tactic is incredibly dangerous. If your opponent correctly identifies your red herring they will point out you made an irrelevant point, briefly explain the irrelevancy, and then move on to your case. Note that this is what you should do if you identify someone attempting a red-herring. In the case that your red-herring fails, you have wasted any time spent on constructing it in your speech, and will likely lose the good-will of your audience. When it may be helpful For you to consider using the Red Herring, '''all' of the following should be true:'' 1) You have confidence that if you mention a certain type of argument, your opponent will talk about it. This usually requires you to know your opponent, or at least their debate style and/or favored topics. 2) The time it takes you to construct a red-herring is less than the time it takes an opponent to deal with it 3) Your red-herring is not obviously off topic, but is sufficiently distinct from the fundamentals of your case that your opponent "beating" the argument gets them nowhere. 4) You can clearly articulate in the PMR or MC speech why condition #3 is true. In Canadian Parliamentary On Opposition The burdens of CP are set up in such a way that it doesn't make much sense for Opposition to use the Red Herring. Your job is to defeat the government case, and present an alternative. However, the former takes precedence. In nearly all circumstances, time you use constructing irrelevant arguments is time you should have spent attacking the Government case. On Government The reader should direct their attention to "when it may be helpful." Obviously, time you spend on the Red Herring is time you cannot spend building or reconstructing your case. The question is whether the decoy is worth it. Be extremely wary of conditions 3 and 4, as Opposition's burden is such that if they have a single "legitimate" objection to your case, you will lose. In British Parliamentary It is difficult to think of any instance in BP in which deliberate red herrings are useful. So much of the style is centered around your ability to have a clear and concise caseline that deliberately muddying the waters is likely to confuse your stance in the mind of your judges. Also keep in mind it is the job of the opponent whip speaker to distort your case in order to make you look worse. If you spent time discussing an irrelevant point, you may end up being defined by it. CSG: Red Herring example? Category:Strategy&Tactics